Image Stabilization or ISO ability: Panasonic vs Fuji (1 Viewer)

[lachlustre]

I don't know very much about photography, so I would appreciate your help with this:

I'm researching a digiscoping camera. Two models have piqued my interest because they boast technological advances that might be relevant for digiscoping: the Panasonic FX-9, and the Fuji F11 (or perhaps E900: doesn't matter for purposes of this question). Both cameras seem to have had somewhat enthusiastic reviews on different threads in the "Digiscoping cameras" section.

From what I've read, once you've found a camera whose lens matches up well to your scope, and once you've successfully attached the camera to the scope, the main remaining problem is camera-shake. Camera shake is an inherent problem with digiscoping because a) there is a large amount of magnification and b) there is a relatively low amount of light entering the camera from the eyepiece - this means that the camera has to use a slower shutter speed. Therefore some of the advice meted out to would-be digiscopers like me involves investing in a stable tripod, and a scope with a large objective lens to maximize brightness.

The Panasonic and Fuji cameras take alternative approaches to improving the situation still further. The Panasonic does this with Image Stabilization technology which allows you to use a slower shutter speed on the camera without blurring. On the other hand, Fuji has invested in more sensitive sensors that allow you to use higher ISO values without noise becoming an issue. High ISO's = more light sensitivity = faster shutter speeds with less light = less image shake. In contrast, Panasonic cameras seem to be notorious for their relatively poor performance on high ISO settings (see any recent review at dpreview.com).

So... the question: which technique is better? From my perspective as a complete beginner, the Fuji approach seems more useful for wildlife photographers. Why? Well the point of Image Stabilization is to allow you to use slower shutter speeds successfully, but the hand-shaking photographer is not the only moving creature involved in wildlife photography. Surely the aim is to increase shutter speeds as much as possible to capture sharp pictures of moving animals. Hence Fuji's approach seems more likely to work. What do you think?

(Of course there are other factors that distinguish these cameras: Panasonic's Leica lenses are often praised, for example. I am more interested in how these two technological advances stack up against each other for digiscopers)

 

[IanF]

I'd be interested in fnding the answer as well, though I suspect it's the Fuji if they really have solved the noise issue on a compact at higher ISO numbers as higher shutter speed at higher ISO would also mean reducing the problem of the bird movement.

Normal advice from camera manufacturers for use of IS is that it should be switched off if using the camera on a tripod as it may cause damage to the workings. I don't think they'd be giving this warning without good reason.

 

[iporali]

So... the question: which technique is better? From my perspective as a complete beginner, the Fuji approach seems more useful for wildlife photographers. Why? Well the point of Image Stabilization is to allow you to use slower shutter speeds successfully, but the hand-shaking photographer is not the only moving creature involved in wildlife photography. Surely the aim is to increase shutter speeds as much as possible to capture sharp pictures of moving animals. Hence Fuji's approach seems more likely to work.

Lachlustre,

A good question. I think we will eventually get them both, but in the meantime we may have to choose from existing models. I agree with you and Ian that a low-noise high ISO-sensitivity would probably be more useful than image stabilization with noisy sensor. However, I am not sure whether Fuji's implementation of its low-noise sensor actually produces *that much* faster shutter speeds in digiscoping (see RedBishop's experiments with the F11 & A95). And in handheld digiscoping, the benefit of IS is IMO more than 2 stops. In my non-serious "snapshot digiscoping" I probably would rather choose the Panasonic (I never increase the ISO sensitivity on my CP4500 either), but for someone who often photographs in poor light, Fuji may be a better choice.

It is interesting to see how the upcoming IS-capable Panasonic and Canon handle their very high ISO-sensitivities, but it does look like the development is going to the right direction (where image blurring from both camera shake and target movements are taken into account).

Ilkka

 

[digitalbirdy]

I can not comment on the FX-9 but I have been using a Fuji F10 for six months and for 2 months digiscoping. Quite frankly its outstanding. I am surprised more people here are not using it. It has a very sharp lens which gives incredible detail and is totally noiseless in the normal sense at ISO400. At ISO800 its as noisy as most ISO200 cameras.

But and this is the amazing bit - it is 'noisless' without using in camera blurring and smoothing which most other manufacturers do. Thats why it gives such a sharp detailed image.

My scoped photos are coming out very good and when I upgrade to an ED scope, I am expecting miracles. For digiscoping the better manual controls on the F11 would be well worth having instead of the F10.

 

[amfish]

In practice, I think you'll find that high ISO support is better than IS for wildlife. The trouble with using IS to compensate for shake on long exposures is that it can't compensate for the wildlife itself moving.